Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[Queller]

Please explain how an anklyosaurus comes into existence by the cobbling together of culled genetic accidents over millions of years.

The superstitious Darwinian mysticism you guys readily swallow is simply amazing. Pseudo-skeptics to the highest degree.

Wow! Talking about avoiding the subject of the post. You rarely get to see such bobbing and weaving outside the boxing ring.

 

[stevevw]

That's because you do. I will give you two examples: the earth being created before the sun, and all of creation taking one week to complete. These are two unsubstantiated claims.

So two wrongs make a right. There are more to these examples than the way you make out as a non believer. Like the sun one is a contentious one because there is debate about what the other light God created may have done. Foe example on day one God created light and it separated day from night.

Besides this we have always been told we are believing in fairy tales everyone knows that. I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't have faith in god to believe anything an almighty creator will do. It is something that many Christians have difficulty explaining as we are talking about a supernatural event. You will call it unbelievable, but we all know that, we have heard it a 1,000 times and we are use to it. The thing is what I,m talking about is that some evolutionist do the same but pretend they don't and then make those accusations about others.

I would like you to give me one example. I will be satisfied with just a single example of an unsubstantiated claim made by an evolutionary biologist. Just one. You claim that you've seen it done "many times", so one example is all I ask.

Well off the top of my head, lets take the fossil Archaeopteryx. For years it was held up as the great transitional fossil of dinos to birds. It was the prize find and the holy grail. But for a long time scientist were questioning it as it had many contradictions that didn't fit it into a bird. They took a couple of similar features and ran with that and turn it into a 100% transition putting it at the base of the Dino to bird transition. They wouldn't have any contradictory talk about it it was the great example. Even on this site over and over again it was used.

Then new discoveries of similar fossils had shown maybe there was more to it. That those who had questioned it may have had a point. It seems now that it is not a bird but a Dino with feathers. There are many like it and its features are in line with dinosaurs not birds which places it in the category of dinosaurs with features like feathers. Even now it is still used as the great transition when at best it has a couple of bird features. But what evolutionist do is they take those similar features and then turn it into a transition and start making all sorts of stories about where it fits in. They make pictures and stories about those times and what they ate and how they lived. But they are looking back at millions of years.

This happens a lot with many fossils like the skulls at Georgia as well. Which show that there wasn't many transitions of ape man, in fact there is only one with great variation. But they built stories all around the other skulls they found in Africa and had displays in museums and pictures in books. They put flesh on the creatures and made them look like they transformed into humans when they had nothing to go by. Even if you accept that you could maybe give a little slack and say ok maybe one or two of the other skulls may be other species they dont say that. They dont say we have this discover and its hard to tell and the science is out at the moment so we need to find out more. They turn little discoveries into big events and then start to build stories around them and before you know it they are talked about as facts.

Nothing in science is 100% proven. This is simply not true. Not one scientist makes this claim.

We know that but my point is many say it is when it comes to evolution. Even dawkins says its 100% true.

"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust." (Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth)


But heres the trick they do. They say this but dont qualify it. You see there is a form of evolution its called micro not macro. So what they do is they start out showing micro evolution and then change it half way through and use that as proof of macro evolution as proof. There has been no proof of one creature completely changing to another different and new creature from another animal group.


So heres a point if you admit that nothing is 100% then every time an evolutionist says that evolution has been proved beyond doubt and is fact and 100% true they are wrong and also making claims that you accuse religion of doing.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Please explain how an anklyosaurus comes into existence by the cobbling together of culled genetic accidents over millions of years.

The superstitious Darwinian mysticism you guys readily swallow is simply amazing. Pseudo-skeptics to the highest degree.

Wow! Talking about avoiding the subject of the post. You rarely get to see such bobbing and weaving outside the boxing ring.

Oh, oh, I'm going to use the graphic! I don't care if I'm the only one who finds it entertaining, with that kind of transparent evasion it is necessary.

 

[Seipai]

We know that but my point is many say it is when it comes to evolution. Even dawkins says its 100% true.

"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust." (Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth)


But heres the trick they do. They say this but dont qualify it. You see there is a form of evolution its called micro not macro. So what they do is they start out showing micro evolution and then change it half way through and use that as proof of macro evolution as proof. There has been no proof of one creature completely changing to another different and new creature from another animal group.


So heres a point if you admit that nothing is 100% then every time an evolutionist says that evolution has been proved beyond doubt and is fact and 100% true they are wrong and also making claims that you accuse religion of doing.

As far as evolution being correct, yes that is true. The evidence supporting evolution is stronger than the evidence for any murder case in the history of the world. When pressed scientists will admit that there is an extremely small possibility that is wrong. That possibility is only a very small fraction of 1%.

 

[stevevw]

As far as evolution being correct, yes that is true. The evidence supporting evolution is stronger than the evidence for any murder case in the history of the world. When pressed scientists will admit that there is an extremely small possibility that is wrong. That possibility is only a very small fraction of 1%.

I find it funny when you say when pressed they will say there is a 1% chance its not. Like when pressed is saying they dont like to admit this in the first place and i doubt very much its 1%.

Please show me 99% evidence for macro evolution i would like to see that.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I find it funny when you say when pressed they will say there is a 1% chance its not. Like when pressed is saying they dont like to admit this in the first place and i doubt very much its 1%.

Please show me 99% evidence for macro evolution i would like to see that.

Start a thread. You're getting pretty off topic. Remember the discussion is about how the fossil record does not fit with Genesis.

 

[stevevw]

Start a thread. You're getting pretty off topic. Remember the discussion is about how the fossil record does not fit with Genesis.

Well two things here i have seen over and over again many talk about unrelated topics on threads and no one says anything when it suits them. It is not totally unrelated as to prove that evolution is not true by the fossil record will at least allow creation to be a better alternate as it will fit in better. If you want to show how the fossil record doesn't fit creation then you just prove what evolutionist say is not true. But i dont need to start a new thread as there are many that talk about this topic on many threads that dont necessarily start out that way but everyone accepts it and talks about it. I guess if you find it hard to come up with any evidence then you dont want to talk about it. If you want you can post it on a related topic and i will check it out there.

 

[46AND2]

We know that but my point is many say it is when it comes to evolution. Even dawkins says its 100% true.

"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust." (Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth)


But heres the trick they do. They say this but dont qualify it. You see there is a form of evolution its called micro not macro. So what they do is they start out showing micro evolution and then change it half way through and use that as proof of macro evolution as proof. There has been no proof of one creature completely changing to another different and new creature from another animal group.


So heres a point if you admit that nothing is 100% then every time an evolutionist says that evolution has been proved beyond doubt and is fact and 100% true they are wrong and also making claims that you accuse religion of doing.

Evolution, as science defines it, IS fact. It is observed. Microevolution IS evolution. The difference between micro and macro in the scientific world is nothing more than macro being microevolution past the species level. This has also been observed.

THAT is what people mean when they say that evolution is fact. We absolutely have seen the change of allele frequency in a species over time.

The way creationists define macroevolution is a strawman. It is not what the word means in science.

The fact that you try to change the meaning of macroevolution to something that science never intended it to mean, does not refute the idea that evolution is fact.

Your issue is with common descent; UCA in general, and primates and humans specifically. In other words, your issue is that you don't think that the fact of evolution is the basis for the similarities of all animals on the planet.

 

[juvenissun]

Ok, then tell me, what subset of creationism can be falsified?

Hint: you already said there is none.

Science.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Well two things here i have seen over and over again many talk about unrelated topics on threads and no one says anything when it suits them. It is not totally unrelated as to prove that evolution is not true by the fossil record will at least allow creation to be a better alternate as it will fit in better. If you want to show how the fossil record doesn't fit creation then you just prove what evolutionist say is not true. But i dont need to start a new thread as there are many that talk about this topic on many threads that dont necessarily start out that way but everyone accepts it and talks about it. I guess if you find it hard to come up with any evidence then you dont want to talk about it. If you want you can post it on a related topic and i will check it out there.

Oh, ya got me. I'm just scared of your super convincing arguments. That's it. I would have thought a more focused discussion on your question would be exactly what you would want, but whatever.

 

[juvenissun]

Science = A + (not)B

Creationism = A - (not)B

Therefore, creationism is less than science.

Unless you'd like to demonstrate why falsification is a negative?

If you are pretending, then you are insulting yourself.
Here is why:

The factor "falsify" in my argument has two levels: a global one and a local one.

Do you understand? Please, don't let me give you another introductory level lesson again. It is really hard to talk to a kid. He does not understand and I have to apologize for his ignorance.

 

[stevevw]

Evolution, as science defines it, IS fact. It is observed. Microevolution IS evolution. The difference between micro and macro in the scientific world is nothing more than macro being microevolution past the species level. This has also been observed.

THAT is what people mean when they say that evolution is fact. We absolutely have seen the change of allele frequency in a species over time.

The way creationists define macroevolution is a strawman. It is not what the word means in science.

The fact that you try to change the meaning of macroevolution to something that science never intended it to mean, does not refute the idea that evolution is fact.

Your issue is with common descent; UCA in general, and primates and humans specifically. In other words, your issue is that you don't think that the fact of evolution is the basis for the similarities of all animals on the planet.

Well yes i dont think evolution is the basis for the similarities that they use when it comes to a Dino becoming a bird or a fish that doesn't breath air becoming a lizard or a creature on land that does breath air. I thought micro evolution is to do with changes that will happen with a species or group that allow it to take on different features to adapt to its enviroment. Those variations come from the existing genetics ie a loss of information or a combination of genetic from the existing ones to make new features and adjustments. But as for a creatures genetics taking on new information to make them more complex in a way that they can evolved from an ape to a smarter and more complex man are not proved.

Can you show me the 100% factual evidence for this as Atheos canadensis said to start another thread but you seem to want to talk about it.

 

[46AND2]

Well yes i dont think evolution is the basis for the similarities that they use when it comes to a Dino becoming a bird or a fish that doesn't breath air becoming a lizard or a creature on land that does breath air.

Can you show me the 100% factual evidence for this as Atheos canadensis said to start another thread but you seem to want to talk about it.

Where did I make a 100% claim of those things?

I just told you what people mean when they say evolution is fact. YOU call it microevolution. Science just calls it evolution.

 

[46AND2]

If you are pretending, then you are insulting yourself.
Here is why:

The factor "falsify" in my argument has two levels: a global one and a local one.

Do you understand? Please, don't let me give you another introductory level lesson again. It is really hard to talk to a kid. He does not understand and I have to apologize for his ignorance.

Juve, I've already schooled you on the ALL/EVERY debate, do you really want to go another round?

 

[Seipai]

Well yes i dont think evolution is the basis for the similarities that they use when it comes to a Dino becoming a bird or a fish that doesn't breath air becoming a lizard or a creature on land that does breath air. I thought micro evolution is to do with changes that will happen with a species or group that allow it to take on different features to adapt to its enviroment. Those variations come from the existing genetics ie a loss of information or a combination of genetic from the existing ones to make new features and adjustments. But as for a creatures genetics taking on new information to make them more complex in a way that they can evolved from an ape to a smarter and more complex man are not proved.

Can you show me the 100% factual evidence for this as Atheos canadensis said to start another thread but you seem to want to talk about it.

And again, you show that you do not understand evidence.

Evidence is not "100% factual". Scientific evidence either supports a scientific theory or opposes it.

It is very hard to find any evidence that opposes Evolution. It would be very easy to show you evidence that supports evolution, but if you are a typical creationist you will simply ignore it.

 

[stevevw]

Where did I make a 100% claim of those things?

I just told you what people mean when they say evolution is fact. YOU call it microevolution. Science just calls it evolution.

yes but they use that and make out that a fish can become a breathing animal on land. Bacteria has been observed to take on variation such as anti biotic resistance. This is micro evolution. But for that bacteria to take on new more complex genes and develop into a living cell is another thing that has not been proved 100%, 99% or even 10%.

 

[stevevw]

Oh, ya got me. I'm just scared of your super convincing arguments. That's it. I would have thought a more focused discussion on your question would be exactly what you would want, but whatever.

I just think it doesn't stop anyone in the past and it is sort of related to the subject. I have noticed in most of the forums that come under the heading of genetics , fossil records, creation, dinosaurs, Darwin God or even how the universe started seem to always come back to similar points. What the proof of evolution or whats the proof of God. So most forums are a mixture of these. I even saw a theology subject being debated on a fossil forum for weeks. Im not sure people worry about it. But i understand the need to keep it organized so i will leave it at that and maybe we can talk about it in another forum. But i have discussed it before and it seems to end up the same with points of disagreements that never get resolved one way or the other.

 

[46AND2]

yes but they use that and make out that a fish can become a breathing animal on land.

This isn't part of what is claimed as fact by those well versed in evolution.

Bacteria has been observed to take on variation such as anti biotic resistance. This is micro evolution.

yes. This is part of what is claimed as fact.

But for that bacteria to take on new more complex genes and develop into a living cell is another thing that has not been proved 100%, 99% or even 10%.

Why should it be proven? It isn't even claimed. The acquisition of "new more complex genes" is something only claimed by creationists in their strawman version of evolution.

They DO acquire new genes, through gene duplication (observed), for example, but they are not more complex.

And I don't really understand the second part "develop into a living cell." Bacteria ARE living.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Show me the words I said. If I am wrong, I won't hesitate to apologize.

You have an awful lot of apologising to catch up with if you are going to apologise for every time you have been shown to be embarrassingly, humiliatingly wrong on this forum.

 

[Black Akuma]

Did you notice Sloths and Koalas are arboreal?

Correction: Modern sloths are arboreal.

Ground sloth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ground sloths. Really big sloths. Couldn't climb trees. A whole group of them, with 80 different genera.

And guess what?

They all appear above dinosaurs. All of them.

You fail.